School administrators point out flaws in report card system

Oct. 29, 2012

Kindergarten teacher Rocco Marchionda plays his guitar for his Merrill Elementary school class. Merrill, a former state school of recognition, received the second-lowest rating of 'meets few expectations.' Administrators said the rating had more to do with technicalities than actual performance. / Gannett Wisconsin Media photo

Written by

Gannett Wisconsin Media Investigative Team

Several principals and other school administrators are urging the state to re-examine the way it scores schools on new report cards after pointing out shortcomings they think unfairly hurt districts with high poverty or large numbers of minorities or disabled students.

At issue is what the report cards released last Monday actually say about schools. Some interpret the “fails to meet expectations” label given to 76 schools to mean they’re truly failing students. But state education officials and administrators at those schools have cautioned against jumping to that conclusion because the ratings don’t consider social and demographic challenges.

As a result, the state’s most socially challenged schools received the harshest ratings, whether deserved or not, a Gannett Wisconsin Media review found.

Schools that earned the lowest rating had, on average, 85 percent of students living in poverty, 22 percent of students with disabilities and 85 percent of students were minorities.

In contrast, schools that significantly exceeded the state’s expectations had, on average, 21 percent of students living in poverty, 10 percent of students with disabilities and 15 percent minorities.

In Oshkosh, Merrill Elementary School, a former state school of recognition, received the second-lowest rating of “meets few expectations.” Administrators said the rating had more to do with technicalities than actual performance.

The school has a very high population of students in poverty and with disabilities. In fact, it’s so high the state couldn’t give the school a score for achievement gaps, one of the top priority areas, because the school’s “typical” student population was too small, Oshkosh Director of Curriculum and Assessment Julie Mosher said. The school also was rated only on two years worth of testing data instead of the three years that were used for most other districts because the school used to be a charter school, Mosher said.

The report cards are meant to give a more comprehensive view of a schools performance by measuring a variety of indicators, such as change in student test scores over time, graduation and dropout rates and differences in the scores of students considered disadvantaged by poverty, race or disability.

(Page 2 of 2)

But the reports still are based on test scores, though the results are measured in new ways.

Finding meaning in the report card ratings is further complicated by the lack of a benchmark to compare schools’ performance against. The DPI called this a baseline year, and schools will be held accountable in future years based on whether they do better or worse on future report cards.

Green Bay’s East High School received the lowest-possible rating, “fails to meet expectations.” Principal Ed Dorff said the high-poverty school was docked points for having a low graduation rate. He said that number is skewed, however, because significant numbers of students from poor or unstable homes move out of the school’s attendance area every year. Those students are counted against the graduation rate.

Sheboygan school district Supt. Joe Sheehan criticized the report cards for factoring in ACT scores, but not giving credit to students who go into the military or graduate with certificates in skilled trades.

“I think we’ve got everyone measured using the same criteria, so in that sense you can’t say it’s not a fair system. But do I believe it’s a fair representation of our school? I’d say absolutely not,” Dorff said.

The DPI has agreed to work with districts to improve the report cards, but it also defended the integrity and accuracy of the new system.

“I think the measures provided are as accurate as they can be,” said Laura Pinsonneault, director of office of educational accountability at the DPI. “I’m not saying there needs to be changes because the system needs to be different. I’m just saying I know we’ll be working with new data as our assessment system changes.”